IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

High Seas wrote:

Hi Old Europe - pls read the entire post before commenting:

The obese were number (1) the others are the ones mentioned under number (2), and the subject of your article. Smokers cost almost nothing.

Hello High Seas.

I did read the entire post. However, I only commented on the part of it that I quoted - the claim that obese people cost a health care system more money than healthy people.

I thought the results of the Dutch study were quite interesting in that regard, and somewhat counter-intuitive.

If you've been following the threads on universal health care on this forum, you'll have noticed that obesity has often been cited as a reason why per capita health care costs in America would be so much higher than in any other country - just as you claimed in your earlier post.

old europe wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Hi Old Europe - pls read the entire post before commenting:

The obese were number (1) the others are the ones mentioned under number (2), and the subject of your article. Smokers cost almost nothing.

Hello High Seas.

I did read the entire post. However, I only commented on the part of it that I quoted - the claim that obese people cost a health care system more money than healthy people.

I thought the results of the Dutch study were quite interesting in that regard, and somewhat counter-intuitive.

If you've been following the threads on universal health care on this forum, you'll have noticed that obesity has often been cited as a reason why per capita health care costs in America would be so much higher than in any other country - just as you claimed in your earlier post.

This is not claimed by me in either the post you cite or on any other I ever made.

I've access to actuarial date for well over 120 million persons worldwide in connection with my work; costs of health care for Americans, exclusively, is no part of any post I ever made either.

Your article, once again, refers to MY category (2) in my post, which I don't plan to repeat - perhaps you'll be kind enough to read it once more and see that your article and I are in perfect agreement

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

Certainly if by "obesity" you include the associated diseases (cardiovascular, internal organs, cancers, diabetes, etc) over the duration of the patient's life.

Actuarially the internal insurance companies' data are confidential but medically you can find literally petabytes of supporting evidence.

Did that answer your question?

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

American patients stay a lot shorter in hospital than patients do here: here, under our health system, the docors in the hospital decide that period, and not the insurence companies.
(There are some 'general guide lines', though, by the health insurers.)

I post this, since I've just read a report in today's Chicago Tribune about a proposed bill which would mandate that insurance companies cover a hospital stay for up to 48 hours after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, and 24 hours after a lymph node dissection.

Those patients stay here about one week in hospital, often longer.

MM, the point is that the doctor should decide this, not the insurance company.

Are you saying that the insurance company is a better judge of medical necessity than is the doctor? I think I will give up.

48 hours after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, and 24 hours after a lymph node dissection.

Those patients stay here about one week in hospital, often longer.

But if the Dr decides that you need to stay in the hospital, even when there is no valid medical reason to, then isnt that Dr doing nothing more then making the hospital more money, at your expense?

There is no valid medical reason for a person who has had a normal mastectomy or lumpectomy to stay in the hospital for a week or longer.

But if the Dr decides that you need to stay in the hospital, even when there is no valid medical reason to, then isnt that Dr doing nothing more then making the hospital more money, at your expense?

How is the German system different? Are doctors in Germany generally employees of hospitals or clinics or do they operate as independent agents in their own businesses or partnerships?

I recognize that in the UK and Canada doctors are mostly employees of the respective national health services.

They are all employed, payed on tariff (in junior ranks), get a salary by agreement in the higher ranks.

There is no valid medical reason for a person who has had a normal mastectomy or lumpectomy to stay in the hospital for a week or longer.

The length of stay in a hospital will depend on the specific medical case, the specific hospital, the specific attending physician, the age of the patient,
the medical history of the patient, and available social /health support to the patient on her release home from the hospital among many, many other variables ...

I recognize that in the UK and Canada doctors are mostly employees of the respective national health services.

Miller wrote:

The length of stay in a hospital will depend on the specific medical case, the specific hospital, the specific attending physician, the age of the patient,
the medical history of the patient, and available social /health support to the patient on her release home from the hospital among many, many other variables ...

Since I was referring here clearly to the situation in Germany, this response is .... well, not really how the situation is alike here.